contradicting his own cabinet members and press people by saying his executive order on immigration is in fact a travel ban. he also says his justice department should not have watered down the original version that prioritized christians. >> gave a carve-out to minority religions seen as a major indication of the true desire of the man which was to target muslims. so trump is under fire not just for those tweets and expressions of policy intention but for how he reacted to the london terror attack. why did the president go after london's mayor, when he was in a moment of crisis? britain's prime minister says that police now know the identities of the three london terrorists. that's our headline from the investigation. we have it all covered for you. let's begin with cnn's joe johns at the white house. lot for to you take care of this morning, joe. >> reporter: that's for sure, chris. the presidents tweets about immigration and his controversial ban on travelers
from six majority muslim countries, but one of the most interesting takeaways is the president this morning seems to be complaining about the administration policy of donald trump, and executive orders that, in fact, he's had to sign off on. let's begin with the first tweet. "people, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but i'm calling it what we need and what it is, a travel ban" this despite many attempts by members of his staff to label it something other than a travel ban. then the second tweet "the justice department should have stayed with the original travel ban, not the watered down politically correct version they submitted to sc," meaning supreme court. that's a reference to the first travel ban executive order which could have been construed and was actually shut down by the courts because it appeared to be a pretextual and discriminatory, especially since the president of the united states, as a candidate, had called for a complete and total shutdown of
muslims entering the country. the third tweet, the justice department should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down travel version. in any event we are in extreme vetting people coming into the country in order to keep our country safe. the reaction from administration aides i spoke with kelleyanne c kel kellyanne conway, i asked her about the tweets this morning, she said why do you obsess so much about the president's tweets as opposed to what he did? i said to her well these are tweets by the president of the united states, to which she gave me no answer. alisyn, chris, back to you. >> joe, these are statements, statements of policy. we can call them tweets which i think somehow minimizes it, but this is how he really feels. so thank you, joe, for all of that communication that you've had and you shared with us. we will be speaking with one of
the presidents advisers momentarily but to our other top story. britain's prime minister says officials know the identities of the three london terrorists two killed seven people and injured 48 others. clarissa ward is live in london. what have you learned? >> reporter: hi, alisyn. behind me is borough market where the attack took place. there is still a large police presence here, we've seen forensics team going in. they know the identity of the three attackers, they're not sharing it with the public yet and we have been continuing with raids, searching four different homes, arresting 11 different people as they tried to determine for sure and conclusively that the network does not stretch any further.
number of raids and arrests as isis claims responsibility for saturday's attack. although no evidence currently exists to back up the claim. neighbors at this raided apartment complex stunned, after recognizing one of the dead attackers, who they describe as a quiet family man. >> the man i know he was a wonderful guy. >> reporter: one woman, however, did have concerns which she claims she brought to police. >> all of a sudden we saw this gentleman, individual, speaking to the kids about islam, and showed them how to pray. >> reporter: locals showing cnn the mosque they believe one of the attackers attended. authorities have not confirmed his identity. london police say the three attackers began their killing spree using a rented white van
that sped across london bridge around 10:00 p.m. saturday night, plowing into pedestrians. >> it knocked down several people, came within about 20 yards of where i was. it knocked somebody nearly 20 feet in the air. >> reporter: emergency vehicles rushed to the scene, as police responded to more violence at borough market, where the attackers had driven, before getting out of the van with knives and randomly attacking people inside restaurants and cafes. >> there were these three men standing there, one with a machete, one saying "they're stabbing everyone." >> you only stepped outside the pub for a second, i man ran up, said this is for my family for islam, looked him straight in the face and stabbed him. >> reporter: these patrons hunkering down fearing for their lives, as others fled the scene. >> people were literally running away as fast as they possibly
could. >> reporter: eight officers shot 50 rounds, taking down all three attackers, one bystander was shot in a hail of bullets. >> there is, to be frank, far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. >> reporter: britain's prime minister condemning the terror attacks vowing a sweeping review of the country's anti-terror laws. >> enough is enough. >> reporter: a lot of people here are hailing the heroism of britain's police. one policeman who was unarmed except for his police baton actually tried to take on the attackers. three police men were wounded and important from the time it took the moment the attack began and the moment they were dead was eight minutes. this was a rapid response, part of the reason they were so quick to use lethal force, the men were wearing fake suicide vests. police were not to know at that
time the vests were fake. >> 50 rounds were used and eight minutes is impressive. claris clarissa, thank you very much. joining me is the deputy assistant to president trump sebastian gorka. good to have you. >> thanks for having me. >> sean spicer, everybody else around the president scolded the media, stop calling it a travel ban this executive order. that's not what it is, you fake news people. then president trump says what we've known all along, sebastian, it is a ban. he likes that it's a ban. he likes the original ban and that's what
he wants everybody to know. why play the games? >> there are no games. the president can call it whatever he likes because he has the constitutional authority to control whoever comes into this country, chris. that's his job. the constitution precedence and administrative law give him that right. if he wants to call it a ban he's the president, he's the chief officer of this administration and he has every
right to do that. >> why wasn't the administration honest about it all along? why have sean spicer and you and everybody else say it's not a ban. it's just vetting. and you're trying to make it sound like something it isn't. the president just proved what the truth is. all this has been spin, and a distraction. why? >> i'm not going to fall into the trap of us being the spinmeisters when cnn is one of the greatest purveyors of fake news. the fact is it's been the same since the beginning from the first e.o. to the second e.o., it's one thing, chris, it's about protecting americans, and if anybody out there has a problem with us trying to keep americans safe they need to look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they are the purveyors of fake news. >> sebastian, it has always been about who it targets, how it targets and whether or not that is what will keep us safe, and you guys played games about it and said it's not a ban. i could play you sean spicer
right now, but you know it's true. and then the president decides to be honest about it this morning. that is spin. you are the purveyor of spin, because that was your message, that it wasn't a ban, and it was untrue. that's why i'm asking you. >> so i guess president obama was also a purveyor of spin with that calculation, because the executive order is based upon the obama house analysis of the seven nations of greatest concern for immigration to america. is he a purveyor of spin, chris? >> well that's an interesting question, and while i -- can shall. >> it is, isn't it? >> i like that you must get away from president trump and policy as quickly as possible. >> not at all. >> and blame obama for everything. >> i'll talk about it for the next hour. >> i'm sure you would, and eloquently so. however, the facts are not your friend here, because that move with executive order from the obama administration was about travel to those countries. it was about who's coming in and out and why. your order is about muslims.
about targeting muslims and keeping them out. >> chris, let's stop that. >> allowing those who are not muslim a carveout to come in. >> let's do a little 101, a little trivial pursuit. what is the most populous muslim nation in the world, chris? >> you tell me. these are your answers. >> no, you tell me the biggest muslim nation in the world. massive population. >> i want to give you the opportunity. >> you don't know. >> assume i know nothing. go ahead. >> it's indonesia. i will assume you know nothing. what is the largest arab nation in the world? >> you tell me. >> egypt. so if this had anything, and i mean anything, to do with race or religion, why would those two nations, the most populous muslim nations, and the most populous arab nation not be included on the executive order? explain that logic to me, because this is where your spin fails. this is where the fake news propaganda collapses, because if we had some dark dread ulterior
motive those are the first two nations you would put on the list, not the seven nation lgs the obama white house identified as greatest concern. please answer that question. >> i will, i will. first, what the obama administration did was target travel from places that were known as hubs for terror, and that's different than what you're doing, because you're targeting national. you could add saudi arabia. 15 of the herks jackers came from there. they're not on your list. there's speculation as to why. instead of looking who you didn't involve, you must look for legal and policy purposes at who you did involve, and those countries are all muslim majority. you did a carveout for non-muslims, and that's why it got struck down originally, allegedly recognized as being overreaching by people like you, which is why you drafted a second one, which the president said he authorized and approved of, and is now before the courts for scrutiny. so the intention is clear, that you wanted to target muslims
from those places. i see that you're a little slow to want to own that. >> no, i'm still waiting for you to answer why would you not include indonesia and egypt, if it was what you said it was about, those would be the logical nations to include but we didn't. how do you explain that, chris? >> i explain it by you going with the original model to make it easier to pass because you were mimicking what obama did and therefore masking your true intention was to not make it about travel, make it about muslims and as you well know not just in your own rhetoric but the president, he has said time and again that he thinks there's a problem with islam. and that he thinks that the muslims may have a problem with us. as you know, with what we're seeing in the uk right now, attachment to the community of muslims is so important and the concern is that a move like this, trumpeted by the president in the midst of crisis in the uk sends an ugly message to our
muslim community here in the united states. >> well, unfortunately, what you've just spun is classic fake news. >> what is fake about what i said? what is factually inaccurate? >> there are no facts there. you are saying we used an obama era analysis to quote -- >> you used his executive order. >> to cloak our intention. can you give me one piece of evidence for that. >> yes, the language. you picked the same countries, was that a coincidence? >> no, because that's what government does. government looks at analysis. >> you picked the same countries. that's a fact. >> what is your proof we had another intent? give me a piece of proof. >> the language from the president. >> that's not proof. >> the same thing district courts seized upon was that he clearly wants to keep muslims out of the country, right or wrong, the people voted for donald trump in part on that issue, but his intention is clear. >> so that must be the intention of the obama order as well. to keep muslims out of the
nation. >> the language is different which is why it wasn't challenged in the courts the same way. it was about who is traveling in and out of there, and the potential for those governments to let or even harbor bad guys. >> you ar selective choice of facts is telling. we did this with iraq under the obama administration and the administration didn't tell anybody. why is that? >> i don't know exactly about their not telling people. what i do know is that the united states administration worked very closely with iraq in particular to build up its vetting capabilities, because of the unique nature of the threat there, and that's why there was the concern, when you guys included iraq, and then you took iraq off the list, which then raised questions about security intentions because obviously you have more concerns of people coming out of iraq than the other countries. >> let's get beyond your spin, let's talk about facts. >> i don't think it's spin. i think it's a little bit of logic that you're having a tough time dealing with in light of
what the president said this morning. >> we're not hooer to discuss your spin. we're here to protect americans. answer me this question. when the last administration forbade the state department looking at the public postings on the facebook pages of foreigners applying for visas to america, do you think that was a good move? >> i think that -- >> yes or no? >> it's not for me to opine on an administration's -- >> you're opining the whole time about the trump administration, chris. be honest. you're opining the whole time. your show he is opining. >> i am not opining. i'm asking you questions and pushing back on your own arguments and you're good at making them. the word forbade that you use is not the one that i would have use, and when you look -- >> it's a good idea not to look at facebook postings. >> it wasn't just facebook postings. it was instant messaging which isn't public so it would have been going into her private
communications. >> don't change the subject. >> no that's a fact. i'm adding a fact to what you're putting out there. >> but you're not answering the question. they were forbidden from looking at public facebook postings, is that smart protecting americans? >> privacy is an evolving dialogue. >> facebook is not private, chris. facebook is not private. you know that, right? twitter is not private. >> instant messaging -- >> i'm not talking about instant messaging. >> that's where the information was contained with the white house. >> i'm asking about the regulations. >> it's easy to overtalk when you don't like the answer. >> you won't answer the question, chris, it's telling. >> i just did. >> no you changed, you pivoted to messaging. >> i'm including the salient fact for you, sebastian. >> but you're not answering my question. >> it's not about her facebook public posts. it's the private instant messaging. >> that's a good policy. >> it's a good debate to have about policy as is banning mu y
muslims. >> it's fascinating that you will go to any degree not to criticize the last administration but will opine in conspiracies it shall it. >> i don't think that's true at ul. >> that's why your viewing figures are in attack. >> we're up 100% year over year. don't let the facts get in your way. you're good at avoiding them. >> unless you're being mandatory in every airport in america you're in a tank, chris. >> we're up 100% so what you said is foolishly wrong. not just abuse of fact but eight silly with its own logic. it's the cnn has benefited so greatly from the current dialogue and the demand for fact and testing power that it is demonstrable by any metric you want to use. >> chris, you're just comedy now. it's just comedy. >> let's put this on. you may think it's -- >> getting two viewers is not a 100% increase. >> that's not the numbers. those aren't the numbers involved. >> chris you're playing games.
you're playing games. >> good try. good try. i give you points for that, sebastian. next time -- >> good spin, chris. >> but this isn't about cnn's success, because that's obvious. >> it's about relevance. >> how the president is doing and what's relevant are the tweets that the president put out this morning where he said what we believed all along and you guys have denied, which this is a ban and he put his arms around the original order which obviously targeted muslim populations, which is a fine political argument to make and let people judge it. we saw it play out in his response to london. are you okay with him going at the london mayor in a time of crisis? >> i just find it really disappointing that not ohm did you have one of your staff on before me for several minutes as the president tweets now we're eight minutes into this interview and you're doing it again. let's talk about policy. >> that is the policy. his tweets are the policy.
they are statements from the president of the united states. >> they are not policy. it's not policy. >> of course it is. >> it's social media, chris, it's social media. you know the difference, right? >> it's his words, his thoughts. >> it's not policy, it's not an executive order. it's social media. please understand the difference. >> i think that you need to have a little bit of an understanding here. the president says this is what i want. >> you're a journalist. >> what do you think we shouldn't listen to what the president says? >> you shouldn't obsess about it for now 12 minutes, chris. >> if he says this is what i want to do on this particular issue, why would i say well, until he says it, i guess what, to my face that i'm not going to pay attention? >> you're talking about one tweet, chris, should we spend the whole program on it? >> to call it a tweet is to run away from significance. >> it is a tweet. what else is it, a bowl of petunias? >> if i wrote you a letter saying one thing or i said it to your face, what's the difference? >> this is national security. >> that's right. maybe you shouldn't tweet about it but he chooses to.
>> to judge national security in a time of things like the manchester and london attacks based upon social media statements is irresponsible of you, chris. >> irresponsible of me to report. >> of you. >> what the president of the united states says? >> it's obsessed for now 20 minutes, yes, you're obsessing. >> i want to get this straight. i want to make sure everyone understands your point. the president of the united states decides multiple times to tell the entire world what he wants our travel policy to be with respect to these muslim countries, and you're saying ignore it, because it's a tweet, and not a piece of paper that says executive order on it. that's what you're saying? >> now you're arguing from extremists and it's again disappointing. did i say ignore? i said don't obsess about it. we're 20 minutes into this and this is clearly an obsession, chris. let's talk about the executive order and what that says, because i would love to discuss the substance of that, because that's what we're doing to
protect americans. but if you want to keep talking about the tweet, then you're not serving your audience well or the american public. >> i think i'm giving them exactly what they need which is the information and analysis about the heart and mind of the president -- >> you're not analyzing the facts. >> -- on an issue, listen, the fact is that he took the opportunity in the wake of london to say this is why i want the travel ban, and the original one. >> you're doing it again. >> the one that targets muslim majority populations. that's what he likes. it may be inconvenient for but. >> that's a lie, chris, i work for the president. >> he didn't tweet those things? >> that we are targeting people based upon religion, if we were indonesia and egypt would be on the executive order. >> the fact you did not make it worse does not defend the original. you made a carveout for nonmuslims, that's a fact, and you should own those facts. the president is. >> chris, chris, you're doing a
disservice to your viewers and to america, and security of this nation. the president is interested in one thing, making sure that terrorism doesn't happen in america. that's what the executive order is about, but if you want to keep talking about a tweet, then you're not serving that purpose either. you have responsibilities as well. >> a message from the president, one policy question while i have you. it's in a tweet. >> another tweet now? this is crazy. >> has there been other to the word to of the consulate has there been official change in policy where vetting is concerned? >> well this is not the obama administration. we don't give away sensitive information, okay? that's up to leakers, that's up to people who thought that you can give away your game plan, like when we're going to attack isis in mosul. we don't do that. we take this stuff seriously.
the procedures we are following are followed in the way the bad guys can't gain them. don't ask me to tell what you we're doing on television so the bad guys can game it. that is irresponsible, chris. >> giving information as the president to the russians though about intelligence, that was okay though, right? what's coming out of the white house on a regular basis? >> chris, you are obsessed. this is amazing. just amusing. let's talk about national security, not conspiracy theories. >> sebastian when the president tweets what he wants out of his executive order for travel policy -- >> you're doing it again. you got to move on, chris. >> sebastian, that is what it is though. it just is. listen, i appreciate you being here to talk about it. >> it's a tweet. >> the president tweets that's method he chooses. >> social media. >> the mind and intentions of the president, i appreciate you coming on the show to discuss your perspective. as always. >> thank you, chris. >> you be well, sebastian gorka. >> you, too. >> we have conservative opinion
writer jennifer rubewho wrote a piece for "the washington post" denouncing the president's response to the london attack and former ambassador to russia, thomas pickering. jennifer, just so i can understand what sbaebastian gor was saying, pay no mind to the tweets. >> this is a man who works for the president of the united states and they're trying to run as far away as possible. it completely undercuts their intire spin for weeks and this is the problem with the president. he's like the world's worst client or the world's worst witness. you get them all prepped to say one thing and boom, he's off and running in another direction. the problem is that we have a president who is not focused on the right things, who creates controversy, who has taken the worst possible opportunity to attack the mayor of a city that has been attacked by terrorists? that's a serious problem.
there are serious concerns about this president's mental stability. and there are serious problems when you have a president of the united states so erratic, so unreliable. this is damaging and the notion that what the president says and what he communicates to the world is not policy, is ridiculous. what the president says matters. it does make policy and if you're afraid for the president to use social media, take it away from him. >> ambassador, should the president's tweets on the travel ban, et cetera, et cetera, matter? >> of course they should, and district courts and the courts of apeel have already decided that they do, so i think for the judicial process, on which we're about perhaps to go to another higher step that's undoubtedly true. i agree with what jennifer has had to say. she and i don't agree on everything but on this one she certainly reflects the views that i have that you can't have a president one day says tweets are not germane, what i say
doesn't count, but on the other hand a whole tradition of 230 years of experience where what the president says is u.s. policy, and it's lunatic to believe in fact that people can look at the president and somehow divide does he have a green light above his head on the tweet that says this is policy and a red light that says it isn't? we have no possible way of knowing. it's kind of what i would call studied lunacy, if that's what we expect to have in terms of a president who one day is obviously reflecting the policy, the next day is reflecting some personal hangup, that shouldn't be counted at all. the president has access to the media because he's president and what he says in the media counts and words mean something. >> what the president says means something, or it doesn't, if you listened to his staff some days. some days they say the tweets speak for themselves. some days they say may no mind to those tweets. they're just social media.
hardy har. it's very hard to know which ones to take seriously. jennifer, you had a very i think strong response to the president's response to the london terror attacks. you write this in "the washington post," "sure, trump's policies and rhetoric are incoherent and based on a tower of lies, far worse however is his appalling character, which accelerates the erosion of democratic norms and social cohesion, a diverse democracy requires. the london attacks bring out the best in britain and in western leaders on the european continent, it brings out the worst in trump and his followers." but jennifer, just to push back on you, he didn't offer condolences first. condolence, maybe those are cold comfort at this point. maybe people want to hear what the president is going to do. he talked about his travel ban and his political agenda instead of condolences. >> this is not the whafor of an ally. what you do when an ally is
stricken by a terrible, terrible attack is you do express con condolen condolences. it does matter, it demonstrate tops the world we stand shoulder to shoulder with britain who was arguably our closest ally. secondly it was not a sin of omission but sin of comission overand over again. why would he use that as a political opportunity to push his political agenda which is the travel ban which has nothing directly to do with the attack. we don't even know where those people were british citizens or not and likewise, when he goes on about we have to get smart. we're not doing this, it's like he's not president of the united states. if he thinks there's something that we're not doing and we're not smart enough, where is the evidence that he has changed policy that he has adopted policies that are improved from the last president? so it's his tone, his vulgarity,
his lack of self-control. that communicates something to the international community, it communicates that america is unreliable, is off kilter, is a little looney right now, and i think it's incredibly difficult and at the same time we're asking our allies to do a lot of things for us, join the war on isis, share intelligence, perhaps reinstate some sanctions against iran. why would they do us a favor, if this is how we behave in an emergency? it makes no sense. >> ambassador, the president seems to think that his travel ban is the best step that he can take towards protecting the u.s. do you agree? >> no, i don't, and i think i need to pick up on some of the things that jennifer just said at the enld. the president doesn't think strategically. three years ago when isis became in fact the ruling organization in northern iraq and
northeastern syria, we were totally concerned with the calipha caliphate. that was a reasonable concern, and we mobileized the military force to deal with it but we forgot the fact that as the caliphate began to crumble and it's taken more time than i'd like, isis reached out in a kind of way beginning to build rantly new franchises around the world and to attack us in our homeland, but to attack our allies, who were admittedly perhaps more vulnerable in their homeland and this is clearly something that strengthening the intelligence community and strengthening our police cooperation and the linkage of intelligence and police plays a huge role in. it isn't bans on large segment of the muslim population of the world, which as we all know only increases the recruitment potential of something like daesh or isis to build strength in the franchises so we're facing a kind of alternative
form of warfare, and as isis loses on the ground in syria and iraq, it turns increasingly to the new form of publicizing itself, the new form of affecting the work -- the west. perhaps a new form even of affecting election outcomes which is very worrying and seems to me the muslim ban in the six or seven countries plays entirely in their hands. we're not playing smart cards at all. i love the word smart but i wish he would listen to himself. >> thank you very much for your perspectives. >> nice to be here. >> thank you. i guess it's somewhat of an interesting question. donald trump's tweets, are they official white house statements? are they policy? are they somehow something less than, because they're on social media? that will be part of our bottom line on this, and the london terror attack. we have fareed zakaria, some great perspective, coming up. no- to inspect difficult-to-reach pipelines,
there's nothing more than my vacation.me so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. they offer free cancellation if my plans change. visit booking.com. booking.yeah. where are mom and dad? 'saved money on motorcycle insurance with geico! goin' up the country. love mom and dad' i'm takin' a nap. dude, you just woke up! ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides. when did you see the sign? when i needed to jumpstart sales.
build attendance for an event. help people find their way. fastsigns designed new directional signage. and got them back on track. get started at fastsigns.com. all right, so there were a flurry of tweets this morning from the president of the united states laying out what he wants with his executive order on travel. he contradicted his administration officials who have been telling us for months, it's not a ban. it's not a ban. he says it is. he says it in all caps, he says it multiple times and he says that's what he wants and he wants the original. this is done in the context of the president being under attack for going after london's mayor
in the midst of crisis. what is the bottom line here? cnn host fareed zakaria, the first question is the easiest. the idea that if the president tweets it, you shouldn't obsess over it. you shouldn't take it as policy even though we've been told time and again his tweets speak for themselves. which is it? >> without any question you're right. the platform you use is irrelevant. winston churchill used radio, because it was the most widely disseminated platform at the time. nobody said well churchill's speeches on radio were not british government policy because he didn't say them in parliament or they didn't have the seal of the queen of england, no. that was the mechanism he used to announce government policy. donald trump has used social media and in particular he's used twitter, tweeting as the president of the united states. he's tweeting from the potus account. how else can one take it?
it seems almost absurd to claim this doesn't matter, and when he deviates from policy, it is consequential. for example, we now know from a political story that his aides had written into his speech to nato that he would affirm article five, that is the all for one, one for all, self-defense statement. trump refused to say it, changed it at the last minute. when the president personally does something it makes a huge difference. all of europe is aghast that the president didn't affirm that. it's consequential what the president personally chooses to emphasize and not emphasize this and he does it repeatedly in tweets. it would be saying if the president went to the rose garden and made a speech, don't pay any attention to it. i don't know what one is supposed to pay attention to, legislation that has his signature on it? >> we're agreed tweets are official presidential
statements. in terms of deviating from policy, hard to know what his policy is, in terms of immigration and the travel ban, because we hear different things but today, the official presidential statement is that yes, in fact, it is a travel ban, taken also just seems that this is how the president believes he can best keep america safe. this is what he thinks the answer -- >> i actually don't think that. i think he thinks it the best way to convince his base, perhaps more than his base, that he is tough on terrorism. i think that the travel ban is a nonsense solution to a non-problem. the vast majority of terrorist attacks in europe and the united states are local, home growns, almost always citizens. you face indoctrination, ideology. the problem is not someone coming in on a visa. >> all the research and evidence suggests what you're saying but that's not the evidence and research the president is basing
it on. he feels there is a threat coming in from abroad and this is how he's going to solve it. >> i think it appeals to people's emotional sense that he's getting tough on terror. he knows it plays well politically. i think that even the president knows that it's as i say soluti non-problem. >> look at sebastian gorka, ostensibly erudite man, condescending because he knows so much and we know so little. what does he say, obea ma did. we could have picked egypt and indonesia, basically saying we could have been knead worse but that doesn't defend that this order is very different from obama's in terms of focusing on who travels where. it's who comes from where but he struggled to the extent that all he could do was attack me and cnn. not a good sign for defending it
in court. >> and that's the real problem is in court. the courts have already as tom pickering said, taken into account presidential statements of all kinds to determine intent, what is the intent of this policy again come back to the countries and the ban itself. the kato institute, libertarian institute did a study looked back to 1975 of the countries included in the travel ban not a single nationalist associated with an attack on the united states since 1975. the sort of empty nature of this policy is beginning to get more and more exposure that it doesn't solve anything. the fundamental reason the united states has done better than europe is that it has assimilated muslim population that is patriotic. the most important thing therefore would seem to be to reassure that muslim population
that they are part of the country, they shouldn't feel alienated. everything trump does works in the opposite direction. >> fareed zakaria thank you very much for the bottom line. >> appreciate it. all right, so disturbing, new images from that deadly attack at a casino in the philippines. the gunmen setting that fire that killed dozens. next.
time for the five things you need to know for your new day. british prime minister theresa may says police identified the terrorists behind the london attack but they are not releasing names. isis claimed responsibility. president trump sounding off on his travel ban in a statement this morning, blaming his own justice department for "watering down" the original executive order that was halted by a federal court. shocking surveillance video captures the gunman torching gambling tables at a casino in manila and shooting at security forces in a stairwell. the fire lit as you see there cost 36 people their lives. qatar is being isolated for its alleged support of
terrorism. their gulf neighbors severing diplomatic relations closing their borders and halting flights. the qatari government calls the allegations "a campaign of lies." bill cosby's sex trial begins today. he's accused of drugging and molesti ining andrea constand. the trial is expected to last two weeks. >> go to newdaycnn.com for the latest. up next the conditions in war-torn syria, previewing a fascinating "national geographic" documentary. ♪ ♪
when heartburn hits fight back fast with new tums chewy bites. fast relief in every bite. crunchy outside. chewy inside. tum tum tum tum new tums chewy bites. i hate the outside. well, i hate it wherever you are. burn. "burn." is that what the kids are saying now? i'm so bored, i'm dead. you can always compare rates on progressive.com. oh, that's nice, dear.
but could you compare camping trips? because this one would win. all i want to do is enjoy nature and peace and quiet! it's not about winning. it's about helping people find a great rate even if it's not with progressive. -ugh. insurance. -when i said "peace and quiet," did you hear, "talk more and disappoint me"? ♪ do do do do ♪ skiddly do do ♪ camping with the family ♪ [ flame whooshes ] trubiotics can to help you feel lighter, more energetic, by naturally supporting your digestive and immune health. trubiotics, a daily probiotic that helps restore the balance of good bacteria.
the isis hotbed of the region around syria to produce a national geographic documentary called "hell on earth." joining us are the co-directors sebastian and nick. great to have you hooer to talk about this film. >> thank you. >> it traces the genesis really of where we are today with syria and the civil war that started there and then the rise of isis. remind us, sebastian, what was the spark of this civil war? >> well there were protests in the town of dara for basically democratic reforms, and the police arrested teenage boys who sprayed anti-assad graffiti on the walls of their school, arrested them and tortured them and their parents took to the streets demanding the release of their children and that was what got it started. >> incredible. >> nick, what is the status of life for people who were caught inside that situation right now? >> in syria? >> um-hum. >> i mean i think you are seeing
islamic state being pushed further and further back, so when you see the front line moving, you see there's almost a euphoria when the front line moves and they're liberated, so we spent some time in northern iraq and saw how relieved people were, and how happy they were to tell their stories when they were liberated, so it's a good thing and the islamic state is facing military defeat, one of the reasons i think the attacks will become more prevalent. >> that's the good news/bad news story. they're facing defeat but doesn't feel like it when you have the three attacks in london, britain in three months. it's important to keep all of this in perspective. it's hard to know the perspective. yes, they're losinger itter to but it's not stopping people from mowing down innocent people in their cars. >> well that's the ideological point of view, you can win on the battlefield i think the western powers will win eventually but how do you fight
the ideological fight? as people have said before, you can't implement policies that alienate muslims. it's unfair to the many good muslims in the world but also galvanizes the aggress of some people who are willing to become terrorists. it's a dangerous thing to do. >> sebastian, i followed you for years. you have made this case time and again about winning the peace. the u.s. military might have the allies and the joint forces, incontrovertible evidence they will win eventually on the ground, but then what? what do people learn in this documentary about the answer to that question? >> well, we explain how the civil war started, and took on a moment up of its own. we talk about how chaos leads to radicalism, which is very dangerous. you can't let the somalis and the afghanistans of the world go on in chaos forever. the whole world would be affected but eventually you have to come to some accommodation with a situation on the ground
and i think it's extremely important that this country for our own moral purposes that we be a haven for refugees who are fleeing war, good people with families and children that we be seen as a sort of beacon of light on the hill, that will take people in. i think that will go a very long way towards blunting some of the aggression that inspires these terrorists. >> what a study in contrast we're dealing with this morning with the president using the london event as a catalyst to double down on what his executive order about travel is all about. what is his taking on taking to twitter to make pronouncements hey, i want that original ban. i want it the way it's always been, and it's a ban. >> i'm not an expert on it but it seems to be he is send a message to his base rather than addressing a change of policy as a threat to our nation. >> nick, you were able to get cameras in to families in syria
and they were able to videotape their lives and the hell on earth that they are experiencing and i think you have something like 1,000 hours of footage. we have a little clip of that. let's play that. >> oh my gosh nick that's remarkable. seeing their little children's faces filled with apprehension, excitement, not knowing what's next. tell us about that moment. >> well, we asked the family to film themselves, so we gave them a little cheat sheet, like a
two-page document, like turn the phone this way, because you know, cell phones even in syria are pretty much ubiquitous, they're everywhere. they could take the cell phones out in the non-isis controled areas and not change the way people behave. it almost like being there yourself. >> so they were crossing out of isis territory into free syria and eventually into turkey. they were crossing an isis checkpoint at that moment. >> you look at the little faces, sebastian, what do you ask yourself about their future? >> well they're children, like children everywhere in the world, they deserve to have a future. these children have not been able to be educated. their lives are in danger. it's absolutely tragic. >> guy, thank you very much for sharing it with us. watch "hell on earth: the fall of syria and the rise of isis" when it premieres sunday 9:00 p.m. eastern on the national geographic channel. "cnn newsroom" with john berman picks up right after the break.
y286oy ywty we're getting breaking news just in to kcnn, word of a workplace shooting in orlando with multiple faisc fatalities, pictures from moments ago outside the keep. we do not have any details on this, other than a statement from the sheriff's office that they are on the scene investigating a multiple fatality incident at some kind of business headquarter. as we get new details we'll get to them immediately. >> this morning the president contradicts his own press secretary, complicates his own legal case all before 6:05 a.m. and with the threat of international terror in the air. 11 people now detained after a wave of terror raids following the london bridge attack. british prime minister theresa may says